Share this

And now for something completely different. The April 29 wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton is expected to be the most expensive security event ever staged in Great Britain. It’s estimated the event will cost as much as £20m ($33 million). And a 2010 study found that the total public cost of supporting the British monarchy the previous year was £38.2m ($57.8 million).

The royal expenses come as the UK undergoes budget cuts of up to 40 percent on everything from social services to the military. Considering the cost, is it time to abolish the British monarchy? Are there other reasons to do so, or to keep it in place?

Instead of viewing the royal wedding on a cost efficiency basis and whine we should all celebrate this moment of history and pageantry and tradition. Imagine a weekend without tsunamis and fukushimas and turmoil in Syria and Libya and Donald Trump. Instead we will see a live fairy tale where a handsome and poised couple will marry amidst horse drawn carriages and color and showmanship that only the British can put together.

For god sakes those that complain should get a life. The British monarchy has been a source of stability and has been steadfast in its commitment to the western alliance in times of war and peace. I predict Kate Middleton will become another Diana in her good deeds around the world. As Americans let us enjoy the royal wedding as our best ally in the world has its moment in the sun.

Thankfully, this is none of our business. We opted out of this system on July 4, 1776 and haven't contributed a dime toward the royals since. If the Brits want a royal family, I say let them have at it.

As for William and Kate, let's wish them the best. Royal marriages have had a bad track record lately; as far as I can see the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Elizabeth II and Philip are the only long term matches to survive the hothouse of the modern monarchy in recent decades. Let's hope William and Kate break the jinx and find some lasting happiness inside their golden cage.

You would think as the UK is undergoing budget cuts of up to 40 percent, the British people would be up in arms over the cost of the Royal nuptials which will cost over $33 million; but they aren't.

My best friend is British and lives in London. For some reason the Brits have always been comfortable walking and driving by Buckingham Palace, knowing the King or Queen and the royal family was nice and warm and very well fed while they starved and froze in generations past and present.

When visiting London onetime, a cab driver waved to the palace and said "Goodnite Liz" (referring to Queen Elizabeth) as we passed by. I assumed he was angry with the monarchy, but I was wrong. In my talks with him, my best friend and others, the general consensus has been that the royal family is the glue that keeps the kingdom together.

You might say the monarchy puts the United in the United Kingdom? One of the reasons for this is the public feels that their government and their queen takes care of them. They have free education (and a good one at that), free health care. There are social programs for those who retire, hit hard times, have medical disabilities, etc, and up until recently those programs have been barely touched when hard times were upon them. They have a low crime rate compared to other countries (such as ours), their streets and parks are clean and it's a fairly decent and civilized place to live.

Prince William is also the son of Diana. Diana, the princess who was taken from life so young and a woman so loved by her royal subjects. So although it's a hefty price tag, it's the Super Bowl, the Olympics, the Academy Awards and more rolled into one for the people of the UK. And the price tag might bother them, but they happily pay it, to see the fairytale and the future remain intact; as they believe their country and their people would unravel without it.

We Americans hated King George III - but we've seemingly loved every British monarch since. I lived in Washington, D.C., the first time Prince Charles and Princess Diana visited there, and you should have seen the jaded society doyennes making fools of themselves trying to get invited to events. If you watch the changing-of-the-guard ceremonies at royal palaces around the world - especially Buckingham Palace - there is always a disproportionate number of wonder-struck Americans in attendance at these meaningless rituals.

With respect to cost, I suspect the expenses associated with our First Family for a few weeks is far more than the costs of supporting the entire Royal Family for a full year. Let the royal wedding proceed!

For all practical purposes," we" abolished the British Monarchy in 1776; and thereafter we ratified a constitutional requirement that the people of our states united be guaranteed a republican form of government. Since we have long since told Britain that our affairs are none of their business, it is fitting that their attachment to royalty is none of ours. Period.

Meanwhile, we should wish the royal couple long life and happiness, and, if the love and affection of the British people continues to sustain them in their official station, a long and prosperous reign. After enjoying the fleeting pageantry, we need to sober up and stop the crazy spending and secure a better future for our own newlyweds.

Well, we already abolished the British monarchy on this side of the pond. So it makes no never-mind to me what the Brits do. I'm sure there are economic consultants who can prove that Britain gets a lot more than $57.8 million in tourism because of the royalty. (Heck, there are economic consultants who will tell cities that a new stadium will have economic benefits, despite all evidence to the contrary.)

As an American taxpayer, I note that my tax dollars are being spent to broadcast the royal wedding on PBS. As they used to say, If PBS doesn’t do it, who will? Well, in this case, only ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, TLC, BBC America, and YouTube.

It's a good thing this wedding is not happening in Bahrain because at least they've figured out they don't need a monarchy. If Britain wants it as a connection to their heritage, fine, but should the Queen still be the richest person in the country, all the while underwritten by beleaguered taxpayers?

It's positively a bargain compared to what Americans spend on our monarchy.

What am I talking about? Have you taken a good look at the imperial presidency lately?

I live in Southern California, and needed to get some reporting done Thursday. But President Obama was out here raising money, so good luck getting anywhere on the westside of L.A. Traffic was shut down all over town because Obama had to get to fundraisers at a studio in Culver City and at a restaurant in Brentwood. No one could plan around this because the federal government, citing "security concerns," wouldn't give advance warning of what streets will be shut down.

When Obama came to town last August, my wife and young toddler child were stuck in their car for four hours by an unnecessary street closure (Obama was raising money at a TV producer's house more than two miles away from the closure). When I tried to walk the mile to where they were stuck, I was threatened with arrest for attempting to cross a deserted Olympic Boulevard (deserted because the president might drive down it sometime in the next two hours).

If the president were really a commoner, and not above the law, he would have braved the 405 traffic like the rest of us. Instead, the rest of us were stuck in gridlock so he could be protected from interaction with the public and the inconveniences of visiting a city with four million people. How is an American president not a king?

When Obama came to town last August, my wife and young toddler child were stuck in their car for four hours by an unnecessary street closure (Obama was raising money at a TV producer's house more than two miles away from the closure). When I tried to walk the mile to where they were stuck, I was threatened with arrest for attempting to cross a deserted Olympic Boulevard (deserted because the president might drive down it sometime in the next two hours).

If the president were really a commoner, and not above the law, he would have braved the 405 traffic like the rest of us. Instead, the rest of us were stuck in gridlock so he doesn't interact with the public or wasn't inconvenienced or slowed in any way by the lives of the people. How is he not a king?

The Brits can spend their money any way they damn well please as long as they don't tell us how to spend ours. For example, at England's urging, we blew several hundred million dollars attacking Libya to little effect. If they want to spend millions of pounds on an anachronistic royal family rather than education or health care, that's their problem. Here in the colonies, we do our thing and across the pond, they do theirs. That's why, we fought the American Revolution.

What really bothers me is the American obsession with the royal wedding. Didn't we fight the revolution to get out from under their monarchy? So, why is it then that everywhere I turn, I see Bill and Kate? Stop already.

I feel obligated to write this disclaimer. I am an Anglophobe and I come by it naturally. The only thing that my grandfathers had in common besides my brother and me was a shared hatred for anything British. Jim Bannon was Irish and he hated the Brits for their oppressive policies on the Emerald Isle. Art LaCount was Quebecois and he hated the Brits for trying to anglicize his native land. If you believe, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, President Obama shares my distaste for anything British because his native Kenya had also been under the heel of the British boot.

So take your royal wedding and shove it. I'm more concerned about whether Brad and Angelina are ever going to tie the knot.

There are now three clear proposals on the table to limit the unsustainable growth of Medicare: (1) reconstruct the market for health services and insurance with stronger price information, consumer incentives and interstate competition; (2) squeeze doctor and hospital reimbursements until even more of them stop accepting Medicare patients; (3) appoint a government panel that decides who gets what care and when within a fixed annual budget. Sen. Paul Ryan has chosen the first concept, while President Obama has now chosen the latter two.

Now, whose plan is more realistic and humane? Here's what liberal economist Paul Krugman had to say in defense of Obama's: "We have to do something about health care costs, which means we have to find a way to start saying no" to Medicare patients.

Personally, I prefer that the person saying "no" be me, and not a government panel. But I am grateful to the distinguished Dr. Krugman for far greater honesty than the president he's defending.

And fortunately, Krugman doesn't stop there, because his explanation is unintentionally enlightening: "we're not talking about limits on what you're allowed to buy with your own (or your insurance company's) money. We're talking only about what will be paid for with taxpayers money." Note that Obama's health care reforms specifically inject taxpayer money into the health care spending of most households earning less than $88,000 a year, or roughly 80 percent Americans and 100 percent of their grandmas.

Now, I'm not arguing that every citizen is automatically entitled to taxpayer funding of any test, treatment and surgery their doctor might prescribe or, as Krugman puts it, "the right to life, liberty, and the all-expenses-paid pursuit of happiness." But I want Democrats and other supporters of Obamacare and critics of the Ryan Medicare voucher approach to acknowledge that someone will have to make that choice; i.e., decide when a medical service or provider is worth its price.

While one may reasonably argue whether Senator Ryan has properly sized his insurance vouchers, or whether his plan adds enough new clarity and assurance in the health care marketplace, at least he's trying to leave decisions to patients. Obama, by contrast, puts his faith in his government panel and a congressional budget line item. In other words, Obama treats grandma like an imbecile, while Ryan assumes that she and her family have a right to the same kind of choices they make with the rest of their lives.

Before Medicare and the proliferation of employer-provided insurance in the 1960's, American consumers paid for most of their doctor and hospital bills in cash. It is hardly coincidence that ever-richer insurance plans and Medicare coverage moved hand-in-hand with accelerating medical inflation, nor is coincidence that non-covered cosmetic surgery (including vision care) is the only medical service category that has experienced an after-inflation decrease in unit costs over the same period. This is not to say that Medicare or any kind of insurance is bad, but rather that individual Americans -- not their government -- are the better decision-makers, and that their choices, ultimately, are the key to containing Medicare's costs.

The Labor Department reported that new claims for unemployment insurance were above 400,000 for the second consecutive week. This is the first time that we have had two consecutive weeks where claims are above 400,000 since weather obstructed hiring back in January. This number of new claims is not consistent with job growth.

While this data is erratic, it should be a clear reminder to the politicians in Washington that jobs is the nation's number one problem right now. Unfortunately, the elite media (the same folks who were too out to lunch to see the $8 trillion housing bubble that crashed the economy) can only talk about deficits and debt.

The elite media were absolutely obsessed with the negative outlook on U.S. debt from S&P, a bond rating agency that became famous for rating hundreds of billions of dollars of sub-prime mortgage backed securities as investment grade. S&P also gave solid investment grade ratings to Enron, Bear Stearns, and Lehman until just before they collapsed.

The elite media crew has filled the airwaves and the news pages with talk of debt and deficits and altogether ignored news that people care about, the state of the job market. And, as every economist knows, their plans for deficit reduction will further reduce demand and employment.

Of course the Washington politicians are following the lead of the media and their Wall Street contributors in crafting plans to cut the deficit by cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. These people hold the philosophy that every dollar in Medicare and Social Security benefits is a dollar that could be in the pocket of a rich person.

The Ryan budget proposal passed by the Republican House captured this philosophy perfectly. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, if seniors bought Medicare equivalent policies, the Ryan plan would transfer $30 trillion from beneficiaries to insurers and the health care industry. This sum is approximately six times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. It comes to $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

But the public won't read about this massive upward redistribution of income because then the public might object to it and give hell to the members of Congress who voted for it. Instead, they will just focus on the scorecard for the debt and the deficit and ignore the implications for the country of the policies that they are pushing.

During this time of reflection and re-commitment, families across the country celebrate the renewal of hope through Passover and Easter services. This week, President Obama urged a broad spectrum of business, faith, labor, civil rights, and civic leaders at the White House to recommit to the fight for comprehensive immigration reform.

Sitting at the table with this diverse group of leaders, such as New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, AOL Co-founder Steve Case, National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson, National Action Network President Al Sharpton was a reminder that immigration is one of the few issues that transcends political rivalries, religious affiliation, and ethnic or racial background. The gathering of such a high caliber group of stakeholders confirmed that immigration reform is a national priority that calls for urgent and sound solutions.

Though the group was impressive, it was not complete. Where were the Republicans? To make real progress toward fixing our nation’s broken immigration system Republican leadership must reject the prejudices voiced by right-wing extremists and listen to the pragmatic voices of the American people seeking solutions to a struggling economy and an immigration system that undercuts wages, exploits workers, and rips families apart.

Democrats are ready to repair the immigration system and so are the elder statesmen of the GOP. Business owners argue that reform is necessary for the sake of our economy. Faith leaders want to reform our society’s well-being. Law enforcement needs a working system to restore order and keep communities safe. The American people call on elected officials to abandon divisive political rhetoric and work for the benefit of their constituents.

The president’s meeting is the first step in this renewed call for reform. Though it showed promise, this Easter, we are reminded that words alone are not enough. It is time for action. We will continue to push for reform until there is justice for all immigrants and everyone who calls this country home.

S.M. Pett (guest)
TX:

People forget the Crown Estate. The proceeds from this go to the British government in exchange for the money paid for the Royals. When this was instituted the amount paid to the government was much less than the amount spent on Royals. However, the proceeds from the Crown Estate paid to the government today is in the region of $340M many times greater than the amount spent by the government on the Royals.

Julianne Cummings (guest)
MA:

If you feel the Republican Congress should stay strong on voting not to raise debt ceiling contact your representative of your district and the senators..Unfortunately I have Barney Frank and Sens. Kerry and Brown...At least two would be talking to a wall but it won't hurt to try...

Scott A (guest)
DC:

In response to Dean Baker - you seem very insistent on on the point that debts are a concern of "elites", but I don't follow the logic. A growing national debt will, if not reduced soon, slow whatever growth we have (killing JOBS - that word should always be capitalized these days).
Unemployment is a huge problem (one of the few things even Trump gets right), but more spending won't solve it this time. Cutting the national debt might help.

Tim Gorman (guest)
KS:

Why are liberals complaining about the cost of the wedding? They continue to say that government spending here is good for the economy, why isn't government spending in Britain good for Britain as well? Sounds like total hypocrisy to me.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Recently, CNN talked to Justin Bieber about Obamacare, the Washington Times had an article on Charlie Sheen's opinion of Obama's birth certificate, etc. Clearly neither is an expert on either, yet the media continually holding up celebrities as American Royalty in some deluded belief that the ability to act, or sing, equates to wisdom and the ability to solve problems. American's media driven love affair with celebrities replaced the meritocracy.

Art Harman (guest)
VA:

Maintaining the monarchy and the funds to support it is probably the greatest investment our friends the Brits have ever made for tourism. Millions visit every year, drawn by all the trappings of royalty. Strip the country of that mystique, and tourism to the UK would drop greatly. Costs for the royal wedding may be $30-100 million including security - a small investment which will reap billions in tourism alone this year! Do the math!

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.